Jenna Ellis: The U.S. constitution guarantees God's rights
: Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.
: This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
President Donald Trump ordered an investigation into 11 missing or dead scientists
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, April 20th and starting with a very bizarre story that has gotten a, national attention including a an investigation now ordered by President Donald Trump. And this coming from the NewSong York Post, a string of missing or dead scientists, quote unquote, too coincidental not to be a major concern. a congressman is alleging. And so the deaths or disappearances of eleven top United States scientists and researchers is a matter of national, urgent importance. A member of the House Oversight Committee insisted on Friday. So Representative, Eric Burleson, I think is how he pronounces his name. A Republican from Missouri said his office had already been eyeing some of the two coincidental disappearances a year before. President Trump told reporters on Thursday, Thursday that he ordered an investigation. So the lawmaker argued that the fate of the scientists almost certainly is linked to the access that some of them had to classified aerospace, defense and UFO information and may involve bad actors from China, Russia or Iran. And Fox News goes on to say that four of those are tied to LA County. whether or not that's significant remains to be seen in the investigation. And so the White House and the FBI have launched a holistic review into the 11 sign scientists tied to sensitive aerospace and nuclear research who have died or vanished since only 2024. So the four notable cases that are tied to LA county, include three JPL experts, that's of course NASA's project, the, the JPL project. And despite a 2025 search, no trace has been found of one of those scientists. And officials have not confirmed yet a connection between the 11 nationwide cases. But it's very weird, the series, and the circumstances of the deaths are just total disappearances, among these scientists, all with high level security clearances. And so the investigation is, is now ongoing.
Gerard Felitti says 11 high security clearance scientists have gone missing
So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. And you know, Jarred, I mean not, not every correlation equals causation. I mean we all know that. But at the same time, it's Very weird that in a very short amount of time 11 top scientists that all have the same type of background now have died or have gone missing. I would think that it would be very weird if you know, 11 for example members m of Congress or people who were tied, you know, to Congress in Washington D.C. went missing since 2024. I mean that's a very small select group as well. You know, we're not Talking just about 11Americans or something that is, you know, a wide enough population that 11 is an insignificant number. So what do you make of this?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the headline speaks for itself and what it's is that we as a people have a concern that there are things going on behind the scenes. Foreign nations potentially being involved, monitoring our secrets, potentially capturing or trying to obtain information from people who work in sensitive fields, or that something else is amiss when we have this many people who have allegedly high profile, high position jobs go missing or found dead. I think that the headlines though also are written in such a way as to kind of lead to the story itself. because when you look at numbers and I looked at this statistically there are over a million people who work in the similar field as these disappeared, ah, people, these 11 missing people. And if you look at just statistically how many people die in the United States a year, you'd probably expect for their age cohort for there to be about 722 deaths per that million people. So 11 disappearing on its own is not that huge of a number. So what we really need to look at, and what I think the authorities will closely look at is whether the work that they were engaged in was related rather than the field that they were in.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's where the, the four notable cases that are tied to LA county and particularly the three on jpl. I mean that to me was a little bit more significant but but you know, at the same time, yeah, it matters to say, okay, we were looking into this but whether or not they're actually related, remains to be a question. But you know, President Trump has come out very recently, just in the last few months and saying that he's going to declassify all of the information related to UFOs and aliens. And we've kind of, you know, gotten off of that with everything going on with Iran and you know, everybody isn't exactly, I think expecting that anytime soon as we've seen the promise of the release of the Epstein files and how Quickly, that hasn't happened. But you know, the, the fascination, I think, with, you know, some of this work and, and particularly the fact that President Trump is focused on that, these aren't just people that have, you know, a similar background. I mean these are people that have very high level security clearances. And so that's, I think why this is getting more national attention. Because that, that seems to be odd.
Gerard Filitti: It does seem to be odd. And the high security clearances. Look, we know, and this has been widely reported over the years that there are active Chinese and Russian efforts within the United States to obtain intelligence that, reports that Chinese companies or individuals buy property near sensitive government facilities, in an apparent attempt to intercept communications or to spy on those facilities. This level of espionage is nothing new. And foreign countries have gotten very good at trying to discern our secrets by targeting, high security clearance individuals and seeing what information they can glean from them. Hacking is a very popular method. So this really does raise the stakes for our national security. And maybe this is the story that finally gets more attention on what foreign operatives are doing in the United States.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's certainly a concern. And that in and of itself, the national security side may be what has triggered the FBI involvement in cases that at least individually might just look like local missing persons or unexplained deaths. I mean this is typically handled by the state and local level. So at what point does a pattern, I mean, either real or perceived, when you're dealing with people, with access to this type of sensitive information justify federal jurisdiction or this opening of an investigation that the President announced on Thursday?
Gerard Filitti: Well, part of it is exactly the national security concerns. Part of it is when you're working on agency, government, agency projects that are sensitive and it's the FBI that is best positioned to investigate because they have agents with clearance to actually know what these people are working on. That always becomes an issue. But there's also the interstate component because this is not just something happening in one location. When you have, any type of correlation, even that crosses state lines, you do get interest from the federal government because it may implicate federal crimes.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And so this is just, it's really interesting. And I think the Congressman, you know, who went on Fox last week and is, is suggesting in his own words that this is almost. The fate of these scientists is almost certainly linked to their access to classified. He may have information about the investigation that we're not aware of and that he's not necessarily sharing, but if that's just pure speculation, that may be jumping the gun a little bit. It may be.
Gerard Filitti: And it's also, I think we need to actually follow the news and with all the story and see where the facts go before we jump to those conclusions. Because again, while it may certainly be the case that there was some project or some work or some some. Some sense of connected enterprise that these people shared, we don't really know that yet. What we do know is that these are scientists. They're the brain trust essentially behind a lot of our more sensitive workings in biochemistry and chemical teams in nuclear components. But again, statistically speaking, these deaths or these disappearances are not by themselves unusual. So we really do need to wait and see what these people are working on and whether it connects to their work.
Gerard Ellis: The Charlie Kirk murder trial should be broadcast live
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, speaking of of things that aren't that unusual, but the headlines always turn us to the propaganda the way that the outlets would prefer us to read this. There's been a lot going on in the Charlie Kirk investigation and the upcoming trial of the alleged assassin with the ATF report and the ballistics report and when this first dropped, Gerard and I know that you've seen these headlines as well that the, the bullet that was found didn't match or didn't you know, necessarily match the. The gun that the alleged killer had. That wasn't necessarily something that was inexplicable or even something out of the ordinary. And so when the the judge unsealed the ATF report last week in this case, prosecutors alleged. This is coming from Fox News that this DNA consistent with the suspect was found on the gun towel and three of the four rounds inside it. And so prosecutors have alleged that separate testing found DNA consistent on you know, all of those things. And so the report's conclusions had already been made to the public, prior to the. The court proceedings. But you know, this is a case I think, where a lot of people are jumping to conclusions right away instead of looking at actually the facts in the case. And you know, this may or may not sway the judge's opinion on whether or not the case itself, when there is a trial, will be live streamed to the public. And I think that it should because we need kind of real time pushback and commentary on some of these things, especially for those that are predisposed to suggest that, you know, this is a setup of Tyler Robinson of the alleged assassin, rather than looking at, ah, where the facts lead, like you just said.
Gerard Filitti: You're absolutely right that this should be broadcast live. I think this is perhaps one of the most consequential murder trials that we've seen in the last 20 years. and it's something of national importance where we already have conspiracy theories claiming everything under the sun with this case. But we don't want to have that bias of people who don't know what they're talking about. Just trying to pursue these theories at the expense of the facts and at the expense of Erica Kirk. And I think that what we saw with this weapons report, when the ATF says that they could not conclusively match a M bullet fragment, that doesn't mean the gun was not fired in that gun. There are a lot of factors that go into that. The type of bullet, the type of casing, how the bullet penetrated, its target, what it hit after it penetrated the, target. So there are many valid scientific reasons behind what goes on. and even then, the ATF did confirm that, there was a match between the bullet fragment and the spent casing. So when you look at the reports and when you break them down with people who understand the science, it becomes less subject to conspiratorial beliefs. And people can have a better understanding of what's actually going on versus what they read on the Internet.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, people who actually know what's going on. That's the key. because unfortunately, in this, whole online culture where you have, you know, voices that can publish to the masses without any sort of gatekeeping or any sort of publishing, while that's good in some sense, it also can be very damaging when you have people that are just out there giving conspiracy theories or opinions on new things they absolutely don't know about. I mean, this is why I like to invite, people who are subject matter experts, on things that I don't know, because you can't be a subject matter expert on everything, so that they can come on and give an informed opinion and also facts based on their expertise. And we should always do our due diligence, and, and not just believe, you know, some of the speculation, because maybe that opinion tends to favor, our own confirmation bias. So it's going to be very interesting, how this case proceeds, but, you know, we need to go where the facts and evidence lead, and that's where the prosecutors are going to. But Gerard Felitti, we got to take a break here. Really appreciate, your commentary and as always, you can follow him on X at Gerard Felitti and also the Lawfare Project, very important work that they do. And we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
There is widespread national outrage over surrogacy and homosexual adoption
Foreign,
: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And finally, there is some widespread national outrage over the definition of family, of marriage, of parentage, and over the legalities of things like surrogacy and homosexual, couples being able to adopt children because obviously in the context of two men or two women, they cannot independently, according to natural law, procreate. So there has to be, some type of, child commodification and ultimately a purchase of a child in order to manufacture the desires of those individuals to become parents when they cannot under any circumstances, naturally. And this happened because there was a viral video that went. And it's just, it's utterly tragic and I feel so bad for this little six month old boy who has been placed with two men. And apparently these are men who are somewhat, well known. they are, one of them at least is a pretty famous singer or songwriter in Nashville. And they posted this video of the child kind of crying. And then one of them saying, you know, do you want papa or dada? And the child says mama. And they kind of laugh at him and say, there is no mama. And then the child starts crying. And and, and the national outrage as this clip has been shared has finally, I think brought up, some questions about the morality and lack thereof of surrogacy, of renting out a woman's womb, of commodification of children and the manipulation and the attempted redefinition outside of natural law of what it means to be a family. And so there has been no better voice in the last few years, especially as she's risen more to prominence than Katy Faust, who has a wonderful book titled Them Before Us, who's talking about the rights of the child and not the preferences and the desires of the adults. And so Katy joins me now.
When you redefine something as fundamental as marriage, it's going to have ripple effects
And Katy, you had a really great thread on X. I'd encourage everyone to follow Katy at. Ah, Katy Faust on X. talking about how the lie of the Obergefell vs Hodges decision, the same sex marriage decision, marriage, quote unquote, the big lie was that this, this decision and encompassing quote unquote, marriage as the union of two same sex individuals would only affect those two individuals. And we are seeing how that lie is coming to fruition. When we look at all of the children that this decision is affecting.
Katy Faust: Yeah, that's right. Gay marriage was never just about what happens in the privacy of your bedroom. When you're redefining something as fundamental as marriage, it's going to have ripple effects. And I'll tell you, the rings in that closest throw, of that redefinition stone is children. Marriage and children go together. The very reason why the government acknowledges marriage and recognizes marriage is because it has an interest in children. It has an interest in the next generation. Marriage and parenthood laws are tightly linked. And so we predicted, and now we've got 11 years of receipts that when you redefine marriage, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood law. And that's exactly what we've seen. So we've got this outrage, rightful outrage, about this baby who's articulating one of the most primal needs. Mama. and being mocked and laughed at by the two men who ordered and commodified and purchased him. and why did we, why were we all incensed and enraged? Because I think for the first time a lot of people put together, wait a second. You know, this is not just love makes a family. This is child commodification and mother deprivation makes a family. And we're going to laugh at the child whose very real needs are being denied on camera for everybody to see. So it's awful. It's absolutely awful. But you know what? This has been going on legally under the gay marriage regime for almost 11 years, happening everywhere. That commercial surrogacy has been legalized and very few people have taken note. Most people look at these kinds of situations and say, well, all I see is two loving parents, you know, or it doesn't. Biology doesn't matter. Love makes a family. Or, you know, they say, well, why can't, you know, two fathers are better than none. And now people are going, you know what, forget that kids need a mother. And I don't care how many people get angry at me for saying it.
Jenna Ellis: And finally, I think people are waking up to the horrific reality of the redefinition of marriage and family and the consequences that this actually propagates.
Jenna Ellis: and you also mention in your thread pretty, prominently, for example, the former Democrat who's now, apparently a conservative, at least in some respects, but not consistently, ah, Dave Rubin. And for those who don't know him, you know, he's a, ah, pretty well known podcaster. He was a Democrat kind of part of that whole, you know, walking away from Hillary Clinton and kind of seeing all of that. But he, is very openly homosexual. he is with a man. And they did the same thing where they went through surrogacy and, basically purchased a. A pair of twins. And at the time that he posted this picture with, his partner and the ultrasound photos and said, coming soon, you know, baby one and baby two, the conservative overall, a lot of conservatives who hadn't quite caught on to the tragedy of this were actually congratulating him. And one of the more prominent voices that I personally was very disappointed appointed in was Governor DeSantis, who, because Dave Rubin's in Florida, you know, like me, you know, who's a Florida host. Ah, you know, DeSantis goes on Dave Rubin show, quite frequently. And so, you know, they know each other well, like the governor and I do. And so, you know, he congratulated him. And that, to me, was a moment of total inconsistency of the conservative and also the Christian worldview for a lot of people who have not understood that being a conservative and a Christian first and foremost is to be consistent, with natural law, with morality, and with the effects, regardless of whether it's a, conservative. One of, you know, the people who's supposedly on our side or not. And I think there's finally some backlash against, the prominent. And, you know, not just DeSantis. There were a lot of people who congratulated Dave Rubin and saying, well, wait a minute, maybe we need to rethink this.
Katy Faust: I agree. And I see a lot of those voices getting quieter now with every increasing pregnancy announcement. You know, there were some for Guy Benson, but not as much. But now we've seen, you know, pedophiles acquire children through surrogacy, and now we see babies crying on camera about it. Now we see single men and triple men that, you know, love makes their family too. And I think a lot of conservatives are going, well, okay, I'm actually uncomfortable with this, and rightly so. and obviously some of them are even, thankfully going farther upstream and saying, I don't know if this is happening in isolation. I actually think gay marriage caused this. And they're exactly right. Because if. If gay couples are going to be afforded the same quote, unquote, constellation of benefits as Justice Kennedy outlined, some of those benefits of marriage for children. And so we've seen a rewrite of our parentage laws over the last 11 years away from children, come from a man and woman and deserve to be raised by that man and woman towards a. Well, now we have to distribute children. You know, parenthood used to be something that we recognize. The child obviously came from this man and this woman. And the government did not interfere and didn't necessarily decide who was and was not a parent. but now the government is just like they did with the transgender movement, assigning sex. Now the government's assigning parents because equality and all of that. And so I think a lot of people are saying, I went along with gay marriage because I love my gay friends, and all of us love our gay friends. And they said, well, you know, the gay movement has told me this is the only way that I can love my gay friends. And if I don't support gay marriage, I obviously don't love my gay friends. And now there's a lot of people that are saying, you know what? I want children to have a mother and father. And even if it means some of my gay friends might get angry at me, I'm okay with that, because kids need a mother and father. And I guess I would rather have a little bit of discomfort between me and my lesbian niece or my gay neighbors. If it means that I am not complicit in validating the manufacturing of intentionally motherless kids, that's okay with me. So this is the right course of thinking. You cannot say, I support gay marriage and say, children need a mother and father, because those two things don't go together. It doesn't go together, in the moral universe, and it doesn't go together in the legal universe. You can have one or the other. Either kids have a right to their mother and father, and therefore, the government recognizes the natural procreative union that makes those babies. You can support gay marriage, and you're going to get gay men laughing at babies that are saying, mama, and saying, sorry, kid, you don't have one.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think that we are seeing the tide finally turning, and people are recognizing the lie that we talked about, that it isn't just between, you know, the two, homosexuals, and there's no other, you know, victims. Well, who does it hurt? You know? What does it matter to you? I mean, we've all heard all of those excuses like, why do you care what goes on in the bedroom? Why do you care, you know, whether two people say that they're married or not?
Katie Oberge says misnaming marriage has harmed children
And one of the, pushbacks, now that I'm seeing, on social media and other places, Katy, is this question well, you say that marriage is between one man and one woman, but where does it say that? And obviously they want us to respond, well, you know, the Bible clearly defines marriage as one man and one woman. So that they can say, well, I don't believe in the Bible. And, well, you know, the Constitution doesn't, claim God and, you know, all of those other arguments to then make it into a religious argument instead of simply one of natural law that, that a child cannot come to exist or without one man and one woman. And so natural law, the very reality to which we're presented, provides the definition of marriage.
Katy Faust: Yeah, it's so funny because I had this guy, you know, on my X thread last night. Marriage is about, you know, children being with their mother and father. I have three different couples in my immediate family that don't have any kids. I'm like, how many people in your immediate family didn't come from a mother and father? That's my question. This is not actually about the adults. Take the focus off the adults begin with the child. Where do they come from? What do those two adults that one man and woman, what do they do for the child that nobody else does? Well, they give them maternal and paternal love. Fantastic. They also ground them, their biological identity and anchor them to a kinship network that stabilizes their identity consolidation. Awesome. They also happen to be statistically the most connected to, invested in and protective of the child. And whenever there's an unrelated adult that's raising them, you know, risk of abuse and neglect rise. So, those are the non negotiables that are going to be true about the human child, regardless of what five Supreme Court justices say. And children are sad. They're sad when their mother and father has left them or sold them. And that's what we got to see in the video. And so this is, you know, awful for the child, but fantastic for people touching grass and hopefully getting back to the place where we correct this terrible injustice we've inflicted on children. You know, I'm spearheading a national campaign. You are in it. ASA is in it called the, Greater Than Campaign. Greater than dot com. We're going to retake marriage like gay couples can't have. belongs to kids. Children should not be denied their mother and father in the name of name of adult equality. So, we are going to do something about it, and it is going to work. And I'm glad that people are finally seeing with their own eyes the injustice that misnaming marriage has wrought on children.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I'm so grateful and thankful that you have been such a prominent voice on this issue and that there is now a groundswell of national outrage that I hope that we can capitalize on, in the states and also nationally to kind of turn things back. because this of course started not just with a sexual revolution, but you know, even like when I was a kid, you know, growing up in the 90s, you watched shows like Friends, for example, that you know, said, well, you know, who needs, our siblings and all that, you know, our roommates and our friends, well, that's our family. And so there was sort of this perception in the propaganda that often comes through the world of Hollywood, right? The worldview that says you can create a family out of your own, choices and the people that you select, not necessarily the people you're related to. And even among, you know, Gen Z, this is a big thing like hey fam, you know, and everybody. And people use that term just very loosely to mean just, you know, whoever I select and prefer. And we are, we are, I think slowly, hopefully, getting back to the real common sense and natural definitions of what it actually means to be a family and that it's rooted in biology and natural law, not just preferences. And so do you think that because of the kind of this groundswell of the grassroots that the movement is, is really starting and like we saw the overturning of Roe vs. Wade that within the next, you know, hopefully few years we could actually see the overturning of Obergefell and kind of writing this terrible ship?
Katy Faust: Yes, absolutely. You know, nature finds a way. That's the bottom line. Like you can drive it out with a pitchfork, but it's going to come roaring back. We saw it with abortion. We're going to see it in gay marriage too. I don't know how long it's going to take with gay marriage, but as long as we keep speaking the truth, there's no way to avoid this. I mean the evidence is going to be all around us. A lot of these kids that were made intentionally motherless or fatherless in the name of non discrimination, they grow up, they grow up and they're going to say, why did you do this to me? Why was it that I had to lose my father in the name of a new civil right? There aren't any other civil rights like that. I mean abortion, I guess, you know, civil right to abortion. Children lost their life. And we recognize actually that's not a constitutional right. So children should not have to be harmed or denied somebody to whom they have a natural right so that adults can, you know, be in line with the Constitution. So what do we need to do? We need to drive home the fact that children are the primary victims when we redefine marriage. It's not adults who are sad. it's not even religious adults who, you know, have to sign a marriage document that they don't want to sign or arrange flowers they don't want to arrange. The primary victims of gay marriage are children because it makes their mother or father legally optional in their life and that harms them. So there is a groundswell and I think that people are having their eyes opened and they are waking up. But it's our job to make the case not just to the culture, but to the courts. So we do have a judicial strategy for the greater than campaign where we are going to force them to make those decisions. we are not going to be asking them do same sex couples have dignity and are they second class citizens? We're not asking that. They are absolutely 100% made in the image of God and just as worthy of love and protection as anyone else. We're going to be asking the courts, do children benefit from their own mother and father or is a state assigned stranger just as good? That's what we're going to be asking them. And I think that when people and justices are positioned with that question, we're going to get a very, very different answer than we did in 2015.
Jenna Ellis: I hope so. And so if you want to get involved, go to greaterthancampaign.com that's greater than campaign.com be praying for this. And it's great that the eyes of the nation are, are being opened to the atrocities of, what has happened since the Obergefell vs Hodges decision and how we have no authority in our own human capacity to redefine the laws of nature, that nature's God has imposed. So Katy Faust, really appreciate it. Again, follow her on X. You'll see a lot of really great commentary from her that you can use in responding to, people who make these kinds of arguments. So we'll be right back with more.
The question of where are the men and what happened to masculinity is being addressed
: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we're talking about the family and the need for a father and mother and a man and a woman, the question of where are the men and what happened to masculinity, is being addressed in a new book from our friend, raw egg nationalist who's Dr. Charles Cornish Dale that is titled the Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity. And, this is a really important topic, I think. And even just in the context, I was actually laughing because I didn't want to cry about, another headline that I saw recently. there's a new FX limited series called Love Story, which is about, John F. Kennedy Jr's life. And apparently the producers had difficulty finding a modern actor with what they called old school, 1980s style masculinity. Basically, they had trouble finding a man. Like, it's so sad that you have to ask yourself what happened to masculinity? And I see Instagram reels all the time that are so true. In fact, like my, my girlfriends and I send them to each other all the time that, you know, say, here, here's another man behaving like a little princess, you know, and, and another man who isn't actually being a man in, in one way shape, or form. And the question really is, what happened and what caused the death of masculinity? So Raw Egg Nationalist joins us now. And, this is a really important question, like I said. And how do you answer this in the book,
Raw Egg Nationalist: Eugenie? Yeah, this is a huge problem. It's a civilizational problem, actually, as I think we're, we're all starting to realize, you know, you can't have a properly functioning civilization without real men, without men who do the things that men have always traditionally done. And for decades and decades, certainly since the end of the Second World War, but really probably stretching back beyond then, we've seen traditional masculinity demonized, stigmatized, downplayed. you know, we've, we've seen tremendous gains for women over the last hundred years in terms of their formal political rights, their social standing, their cultural power. But, a lot of it has been at the expense of men. but that's not the whole story. It's not simply just about the kind of culture that we live in now and social values and the progress of second and third wave feminism. There's also a serious biological crisis taking place. And that's really the central thing that I, that I look at in this new book, the Last Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity. Testosterone decline in particular. So testosterone is the master male hormone. It is the hormone that makes men men rather than women. Men and women both have testosterone, but men have much, much more than women in the same way that women have much, much more estrogen than men. and Scientific studies show that over recent decades, there has been a 1%, year on year, decline in testosterone levels among men across the west, in the U.S. in Europe, in Israel, in other countries, and it looks like actually in the developing world as well. And so as a counterpart to this social decline, the kind of marginalization of masculinity, there's also this biological change, this profound biological change, this happening. And it's happening for all sorts of reasons, reasons that RFK Jr actually is trying to address with the MAHA agenda. Things like unhealthy lifestyles, obesity, sedentary lifestyles, lack of exercise, but also pervasive exposure to harmful chemicals, especially a class of chemicals called endocrine disruptors, which disrupt the body's natural balance of testosterone and estrogen with a wide variety of harmful effects. They drive obesity, metabolic changes, behavioral changes, fertility changes, and also changes to levels of testosterone. and so that's driving this sort of masculine decline as well. It's social, it's also biological.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's so sad that we're seeing such dramatic effects. I mean, I think it's even, been a dramatic change even in my lifetime. I mean, I can remember again, you know, being a kid in, in the 90s because, I was born in 1984, you know, so, kind of coming of age, late, 80s, early 90s, there men were still men. And, you know, there were, still a cultural understanding of, you know, the need of the family and moral, values and all of this. And yet, you know, we fast forward, only, you know, 20, 30 years later, and we see the rise of the effeminate man. And, it's shocking to me that men themselves would allow this to happen. I mean, what shifted culturally, beyond, you know, the chemicals and the science and all, and all of this, that obviously contributed, to this significantly. There also is a worldview and kind of a mindset shift when men don't care about being fathers anymore. They don't care about being husbands, they don't care about being protectors, and obviously not all. I mean, hopefully Christian men still care about that. But even, Even within the church, you know, we're not seeing, the overall standard of. Of masculinity and the things that that, used to entail. And so what happened in terms of this, this. This overall mindset shift that men were okay just disregarding their own masculinity?
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, I think it's a con. It's a complicated story, Jenna. I mean, there are a lot of Things going on. I mean, if we just look at fertility, then of course, you know, fertility rates throughout the west have been in precipitous decline for decades. And we could draw parallels with other societies throughout history. You know, you could draw, parallels with the Roman Empire. You could talk about the kind of collapse of fertility that took place during, the Roman Empire largely as a result of prosperity and say, you know, maybe. Maybe it's economic prosperity that perhaps stops people from having children. Maybe, you know, we're too prosperous, we're too comfortable. people find fulfillment in their lives simply through material goods and comfort rather than, you know, going out and seeking more, meaningful, existence. So I think there's. I think there's that, but I think also, I mean, we are subject to very, very. A very, very virulent strain of. Of feminism, I think, which, by asserting that women are totally equal with men in every single facet, not just mentally, morally, but also physically, then we've really, you know, erase the differences between men and women. And so not only is it the case that actually now, you know, fatherhood is disparaged, but also motherhood is disparaged as well. They're two sides. They're two sides of the same coin. And I think we've. We've moved away from, a sense that, you know, there are, ah, there are fundamental differences that should be preserved and upheld between the two sexes, which don't necessarily mean that they're unequal. You can afford men and women equal protection in front of the law. You can afford them equal value within society. But you don't have to go that further step and say, actually, you know what? There aren't any differences at all between men and women. The differences we see between men and women, they're just arbitrary constructs. You know, they're just constructs of power. And they've just been used throughout history to oppress women at the expense of men, which obviously isn't, is true to some extent in certain ways, but it's certainly not an absolute truth. And so I think, I mean, it definitely is a cultural and ideological problem as well as a biological one. It's an economic problem too, of course, because, you know, you've had women entering the workforce since the end of the Second World War, and that's done all sorts of interesting things to wages. You know, it's much harder now for a man to support family, ah, on a single wage that used to be normal. You know, a man could buy a home or certainly rent A home and support a family on a single wage. That's not possible now. So the priorities have shifted economically, culturally, morally. And then you've got this biological problem underneath as well. It's a really nasty, knotty situation that we've got ourselves into, I think.
Jenna Mah: The priorities of people have shifted in life
Jenna Ellis: M. Ah, you're so right too that as the mindset and the priority shift of what the goals are in life and The goals have certainly shifted. and the priorities for people who are wanting to prioritize physical comfort, pleasure, status, you know, things that ultimately are self driven, rather than creating a life of service and of others and of contributing to something greater than themselves. And when these priorities shift, we start seeing, you know, the people who are are okay completely just being single or they choose a relationship without children or you know, they choose some of these other arrangements, like being in a homosexual relationship that doesn't allow for natural children, because of their own personal preferences instead of recognizing the morality that is implicit in the natural order of things. And this includes of course the distinctions you were talking about raw egg of the differences between men and women and society. Now for decades, has been sold this line. Not just of the sexual revolution and to seek pleasure and all of those things, but to redefine family, masculinity, femininity, all of those things on a relativistic scale and do whatever makes you happy, affirm whatever pleasure you're seeking. Your life goal is just as valid as, as someone else's. And in the process we're losing the. The understanding of what genuinely gives life meaning. And of course first and foremost that is coming into a saving knowledge of Christ and our relationship with Christ, but then living within the context of the ordered life that God created us to be fulfilled in. And so you know, we're seeing massive depression, anxiety, mental health problems and so much that you know, is attributable a lot to you know, some of these chemicals and other things, you know, that are problems with the food system but also with our worldview. Because none of this is making anybody genuinely happier or actually more fulfilled. They end up getting all of the status, money, you know, relationships, pleasure, whatever. And they realize that it's all empty. And then at that point they. They become despondent. And we're seeing such a rise of dependency on Big Pharma because of that. And so it seems like there's no incentive really for our system, whether in America or Europe or you know, anywhere in the west. To correct this, I think it has to come from we, the people, ourselves, recognizing that this isn't a good way to live.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, no, no, I. I agree with you, Jenna. I think that there are entrenched interests and incentives within the system to perpetuate all of this. I, mean, look, women. Women going out to work, in large numbers has benefited big business. There's no question about that. It's kept wages down, because all of a sudden, you know, you have effectively doubled the labor pool, and then you've got Big Pharma, like you say, you know, I mean, rather than. Rather than actually sorting out the underlying problems, you know, what's. Why are we actually this depressed? Why are we this fat? Why are we despondent? Why don't we have any sense of. Of purpose? Oh, well, let's just give you a drug for that. And then, of course, there are side effects from that drug, and so we'll give you another drug to deal with the side effects. And you end up in a point where. At a point where actually, you know, a significant number of people within society are not only medicated the whole time, they're taking multiple medications, they're. They're, taking five or more medications, which is known as polypharmacy. so there are all of these entrenched interests that I think are working against a really meaningful change that could actually do something to, to address these fundamental problems. I, mean, we have Maha, and I think that RFK Jr. Is someone who understands the difference, between ad hoc, you know, like big pharma, non solutions and real solutions that address the. The underlying fundamental problems. You know, he. He understands that we can't have more big Pharma. We need to change the way people eat. We need to get people outside in the sun, we need to get them to exercise, etc. but he's taking on the biggest entrenched interests in the U.S. big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Chemical. It's. It's not gonna. It's not gonna be easy. I mean, we are. We are really at a point where actually we. We basically need something approaching a revolution, actually, in order to, put us back on the right course. You know, we can't just have sticking plasters at this point.
Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah.
Do you think young men of gen Z are recognizing this issue
And, you know, do you think that, And we're almost out of time here, we need to do a longer segment on this, but do you think that, the young men, at least of gen Z are recognizing this. I mean, I see a lot of them, stepping up and saying, okay, I want to return to masculinity. Not just traditional masculinity, but actually the definition of what it means to be a man.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes, I do. I think there is. And you see it on social media all the time. I mean, certainly I've got a huge following on Twitter and that's because of my message, I think. But you see it on TikTok, you see it on Instagram, you know, young men going out, getting fit, trying to improve their lives, trying to make themselves better. And that's something that should absolutely be encouraged. And I do my best, I really do do my best to try and get young men to, to make a meaningful change.
Jenna Ellis: And, So let us know where you can find your book. I guess it's on Amazon to pre order. It's called the Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes, it's out now, Jenny. You can get it in hardcover, Kindle and audiobook formats from Amazon.
Jenna Ellis: Fantastic. So it's called the Last men, by Dr. Charles Cornish Dale. You can follow him on X as well. and so you can get that now on Amazon. And I'd encourage you to read it and think, about the propositions here, that we're talking about because this matters to, to culture, to civilization, and ultimately, to the order that God has established in, in nature, the laws of nature and of nature's God. So thanks so much, raw egg. And as always, you can reach me and my team, jenna fr.net.
Jenna Ellis: The U.S. constitution guarantees God's rights
: Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.
: This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
President Donald Trump ordered an investigation into 11 missing or dead scientists
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, April 20th and starting with a very bizarre story that has gotten a, national attention including a an investigation now ordered by President Donald Trump. And this coming from the NewSong York Post, a string of missing or dead scientists, quote unquote, too coincidental not to be a major concern. a congressman is alleging. And so the deaths or disappearances of eleven top United States scientists and researchers is a matter of national, urgent importance. A member of the House Oversight Committee insisted on Friday. So Representative, Eric Burleson, I think is how he pronounces his name. A Republican from Missouri said his office had already been eyeing some of the two coincidental disappearances a year before. President Trump told reporters on Thursday, Thursday that he ordered an investigation. So the lawmaker argued that the fate of the scientists almost certainly is linked to the access that some of them had to classified aerospace, defense and UFO information and may involve bad actors from China, Russia or Iran. And Fox News goes on to say that four of those are tied to LA County. whether or not that's significant remains to be seen in the investigation. And so the White House and the FBI have launched a holistic review into the 11 sign scientists tied to sensitive aerospace and nuclear research who have died or vanished since only 2024. So the four notable cases that are tied to LA county, include three JPL experts, that's of course NASA's project, the, the JPL project. And despite a 2025 search, no trace has been found of one of those scientists. And officials have not confirmed yet a connection between the 11 nationwide cases. But it's very weird, the series, and the circumstances of the deaths are just total disappearances, among these scientists, all with high level security clearances. And so the investigation is, is now ongoing.
Gerard Felitti says 11 high security clearance scientists have gone missing
So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. And you know, Jarred, I mean not, not every correlation equals causation. I mean we all know that. But at the same time, it's Very weird that in a very short amount of time 11 top scientists that all have the same type of background now have died or have gone missing. I would think that it would be very weird if you know, 11 for example members m of Congress or people who were tied, you know, to Congress in Washington D.C. went missing since 2024. I mean that's a very small select group as well. You know, we're not Talking just about 11Americans or something that is, you know, a wide enough population that 11 is an insignificant number. So what do you make of this?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the headline speaks for itself and what it's is that we as a people have a concern that there are things going on behind the scenes. Foreign nations potentially being involved, monitoring our secrets, potentially capturing or trying to obtain information from people who work in sensitive fields, or that something else is amiss when we have this many people who have allegedly high profile, high position jobs go missing or found dead. I think that the headlines though also are written in such a way as to kind of lead to the story itself. because when you look at numbers and I looked at this statistically there are over a million people who work in the similar field as these disappeared, ah, people, these 11 missing people. And if you look at just statistically how many people die in the United States a year, you'd probably expect for their age cohort for there to be about 722 deaths per that million people. So 11 disappearing on its own is not that huge of a number. So what we really need to look at, and what I think the authorities will closely look at is whether the work that they were engaged in was related rather than the field that they were in.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's where the, the four notable cases that are tied to LA county and particularly the three on jpl. I mean that to me was a little bit more significant but but you know, at the same time, yeah, it matters to say, okay, we were looking into this but whether or not they're actually related, remains to be a question. But you know, President Trump has come out very recently, just in the last few months and saying that he's going to declassify all of the information related to UFOs and aliens. And we've kind of, you know, gotten off of that with everything going on with Iran and you know, everybody isn't exactly, I think expecting that anytime soon as we've seen the promise of the release of the Epstein files and how Quickly, that hasn't happened. But you know, the, the fascination, I think, with, you know, some of this work and, and particularly the fact that President Trump is focused on that, these aren't just people that have, you know, a similar background. I mean these are people that have very high level security clearances. And so that's, I think why this is getting more national attention. Because that, that seems to be odd.
Gerard Filitti: It does seem to be odd. And the high security clearances. Look, we know, and this has been widely reported over the years that there are active Chinese and Russian efforts within the United States to obtain intelligence that, reports that Chinese companies or individuals buy property near sensitive government facilities, in an apparent attempt to intercept communications or to spy on those facilities. This level of espionage is nothing new. And foreign countries have gotten very good at trying to discern our secrets by targeting, high security clearance individuals and seeing what information they can glean from them. Hacking is a very popular method. So this really does raise the stakes for our national security. And maybe this is the story that finally gets more attention on what foreign operatives are doing in the United States.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's certainly a concern. And that in and of itself, the national security side may be what has triggered the FBI involvement in cases that at least individually might just look like local missing persons or unexplained deaths. I mean this is typically handled by the state and local level. So at what point does a pattern, I mean, either real or perceived, when you're dealing with people, with access to this type of sensitive information justify federal jurisdiction or this opening of an investigation that the President announced on Thursday?
Gerard Filitti: Well, part of it is exactly the national security concerns. Part of it is when you're working on agency, government, agency projects that are sensitive and it's the FBI that is best positioned to investigate because they have agents with clearance to actually know what these people are working on. That always becomes an issue. But there's also the interstate component because this is not just something happening in one location. When you have, any type of correlation, even that crosses state lines, you do get interest from the federal government because it may implicate federal crimes.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And so this is just, it's really interesting. And I think the Congressman, you know, who went on Fox last week and is, is suggesting in his own words that this is almost. The fate of these scientists is almost certainly linked to their access to classified. He may have information about the investigation that we're not aware of and that he's not necessarily sharing, but if that's just pure speculation, that may be jumping the gun a little bit. It may be.
Gerard Filitti: And it's also, I think we need to actually follow the news and with all the story and see where the facts go before we jump to those conclusions. Because again, while it may certainly be the case that there was some project or some work or some some. Some sense of connected enterprise that these people shared, we don't really know that yet. What we do know is that these are scientists. They're the brain trust essentially behind a lot of our more sensitive workings in biochemistry and chemical teams in nuclear components. But again, statistically speaking, these deaths or these disappearances are not by themselves unusual. So we really do need to wait and see what these people are working on and whether it connects to their work.
Gerard Ellis: The Charlie Kirk murder trial should be broadcast live
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, speaking of of things that aren't that unusual, but the headlines always turn us to the propaganda the way that the outlets would prefer us to read this. There's been a lot going on in the Charlie Kirk investigation and the upcoming trial of the alleged assassin with the ATF report and the ballistics report and when this first dropped, Gerard and I know that you've seen these headlines as well that the, the bullet that was found didn't match or didn't you know, necessarily match the. The gun that the alleged killer had. That wasn't necessarily something that was inexplicable or even something out of the ordinary. And so when the the judge unsealed the ATF report last week in this case, prosecutors alleged. This is coming from Fox News that this DNA consistent with the suspect was found on the gun towel and three of the four rounds inside it. And so prosecutors have alleged that separate testing found DNA consistent on you know, all of those things. And so the report's conclusions had already been made to the public, prior to the. The court proceedings. But you know, this is a case I think, where a lot of people are jumping to conclusions right away instead of looking at actually the facts in the case. And you know, this may or may not sway the judge's opinion on whether or not the case itself, when there is a trial, will be live streamed to the public. And I think that it should because we need kind of real time pushback and commentary on some of these things, especially for those that are predisposed to suggest that, you know, this is a setup of Tyler Robinson of the alleged assassin, rather than looking at, ah, where the facts lead, like you just said.
Gerard Filitti: You're absolutely right that this should be broadcast live. I think this is perhaps one of the most consequential murder trials that we've seen in the last 20 years. and it's something of national importance where we already have conspiracy theories claiming everything under the sun with this case. But we don't want to have that bias of people who don't know what they're talking about. Just trying to pursue these theories at the expense of the facts and at the expense of Erica Kirk. And I think that what we saw with this weapons report, when the ATF says that they could not conclusively match a M bullet fragment, that doesn't mean the gun was not fired in that gun. There are a lot of factors that go into that. The type of bullet, the type of casing, how the bullet penetrated, its target, what it hit after it penetrated the, target. So there are many valid scientific reasons behind what goes on. and even then, the ATF did confirm that, there was a match between the bullet fragment and the spent casing. So when you look at the reports and when you break them down with people who understand the science, it becomes less subject to conspiratorial beliefs. And people can have a better understanding of what's actually going on versus what they read on the Internet.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, people who actually know what's going on. That's the key. because unfortunately, in this, whole online culture where you have, you know, voices that can publish to the masses without any sort of gatekeeping or any sort of publishing, while that's good in some sense, it also can be very damaging when you have people that are just out there giving conspiracy theories or opinions on new things they absolutely don't know about. I mean, this is why I like to invite, people who are subject matter experts, on things that I don't know, because you can't be a subject matter expert on everything, so that they can come on and give an informed opinion and also facts based on their expertise. And we should always do our due diligence, and, and not just believe, you know, some of the speculation, because maybe that opinion tends to favor, our own confirmation bias. So it's going to be very interesting, how this case proceeds, but, you know, we need to go where the facts and evidence lead, and that's where the prosecutors are going to. But Gerard Felitti, we got to take a break here. Really appreciate, your commentary and as always, you can follow him on X at Gerard Felitti and also the Lawfare Project, very important work that they do. And we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
There is widespread national outrage over surrogacy and homosexual adoption
Foreign,
: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And finally, there is some widespread national outrage over the definition of family, of marriage, of parentage, and over the legalities of things like surrogacy and homosexual, couples being able to adopt children because obviously in the context of two men or two women, they cannot independently, according to natural law, procreate. So there has to be, some type of, child commodification and ultimately a purchase of a child in order to manufacture the desires of those individuals to become parents when they cannot under any circumstances, naturally. And this happened because there was a viral video that went. And it's just, it's utterly tragic and I feel so bad for this little six month old boy who has been placed with two men. And apparently these are men who are somewhat, well known. they are, one of them at least is a pretty famous singer or songwriter in Nashville. And they posted this video of the child kind of crying. And then one of them saying, you know, do you want papa or dada? And the child says mama. And they kind of laugh at him and say, there is no mama. And then the child starts crying. And and, and the national outrage as this clip has been shared has finally, I think brought up, some questions about the morality and lack thereof of surrogacy, of renting out a woman's womb, of commodification of children and the manipulation and the attempted redefinition outside of natural law of what it means to be a family. And so there has been no better voice in the last few years, especially as she's risen more to prominence than Katy Faust, who has a wonderful book titled Them Before Us, who's talking about the rights of the child and not the preferences and the desires of the adults. And so Katy joins me now.
When you redefine something as fundamental as marriage, it's going to have ripple effects
And Katy, you had a really great thread on X. I'd encourage everyone to follow Katy at. Ah, Katy Faust on X. talking about how the lie of the Obergefell vs Hodges decision, the same sex marriage decision, marriage, quote unquote, the big lie was that this, this decision and encompassing quote unquote, marriage as the union of two same sex individuals would only affect those two individuals. And we are seeing how that lie is coming to fruition. When we look at all of the children that this decision is affecting.
Katy Faust: Yeah, that's right. Gay marriage was never just about what happens in the privacy of your bedroom. When you're redefining something as fundamental as marriage, it's going to have ripple effects. And I'll tell you, the rings in that closest throw, of that redefinition stone is children. Marriage and children go together. The very reason why the government acknowledges marriage and recognizes marriage is because it has an interest in children. It has an interest in the next generation. Marriage and parenthood laws are tightly linked. And so we predicted, and now we've got 11 years of receipts that when you redefine marriage, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood law. And that's exactly what we've seen. So we've got this outrage, rightful outrage, about this baby who's articulating one of the most primal needs. Mama. and being mocked and laughed at by the two men who ordered and commodified and purchased him. and why did we, why were we all incensed and enraged? Because I think for the first time a lot of people put together, wait a second. You know, this is not just love makes a family. This is child commodification and mother deprivation makes a family. And we're going to laugh at the child whose very real needs are being denied on camera for everybody to see. So it's awful. It's absolutely awful. But you know what? This has been going on legally under the gay marriage regime for almost 11 years, happening everywhere. That commercial surrogacy has been legalized and very few people have taken note. Most people look at these kinds of situations and say, well, all I see is two loving parents, you know, or it doesn't. Biology doesn't matter. Love makes a family. Or, you know, they say, well, why can't, you know, two fathers are better than none. And now people are going, you know what, forget that kids need a mother. And I don't care how many people get angry at me for saying it.
Jenna Ellis: And finally, I think people are waking up to the horrific reality of the redefinition of marriage and family and the consequences that this actually propagates.
Jenna Ellis: and you also mention in your thread pretty, prominently, for example, the former Democrat who's now, apparently a conservative, at least in some respects, but not consistently, ah, Dave Rubin. And for those who don't know him, you know, he's a, ah, pretty well known podcaster. He was a Democrat kind of part of that whole, you know, walking away from Hillary Clinton and kind of seeing all of that. But he, is very openly homosexual. he is with a man. And they did the same thing where they went through surrogacy and, basically purchased a. A pair of twins. And at the time that he posted this picture with, his partner and the ultrasound photos and said, coming soon, you know, baby one and baby two, the conservative overall, a lot of conservatives who hadn't quite caught on to the tragedy of this were actually congratulating him. And one of the more prominent voices that I personally was very disappointed appointed in was Governor DeSantis, who, because Dave Rubin's in Florida, you know, like me, you know, who's a Florida host. Ah, you know, DeSantis goes on Dave Rubin show, quite frequently. And so, you know, they know each other well, like the governor and I do. And so, you know, he congratulated him. And that, to me, was a moment of total inconsistency of the conservative and also the Christian worldview for a lot of people who have not understood that being a conservative and a Christian first and foremost is to be consistent, with natural law, with morality, and with the effects, regardless of whether it's a, conservative. One of, you know, the people who's supposedly on our side or not. And I think there's finally some backlash against, the prominent. And, you know, not just DeSantis. There were a lot of people who congratulated Dave Rubin and saying, well, wait a minute, maybe we need to rethink this.
Katy Faust: I agree. And I see a lot of those voices getting quieter now with every increasing pregnancy announcement. You know, there were some for Guy Benson, but not as much. But now we've seen, you know, pedophiles acquire children through surrogacy, and now we see babies crying on camera about it. Now we see single men and triple men that, you know, love makes their family too. And I think a lot of conservatives are going, well, okay, I'm actually uncomfortable with this, and rightly so. and obviously some of them are even, thankfully going farther upstream and saying, I don't know if this is happening in isolation. I actually think gay marriage caused this. And they're exactly right. Because if. If gay couples are going to be afforded the same quote, unquote, constellation of benefits as Justice Kennedy outlined, some of those benefits of marriage for children. And so we've seen a rewrite of our parentage laws over the last 11 years away from children, come from a man and woman and deserve to be raised by that man and woman towards a. Well, now we have to distribute children. You know, parenthood used to be something that we recognize. The child obviously came from this man and this woman. And the government did not interfere and didn't necessarily decide who was and was not a parent. but now the government is just like they did with the transgender movement, assigning sex. Now the government's assigning parents because equality and all of that. And so I think a lot of people are saying, I went along with gay marriage because I love my gay friends, and all of us love our gay friends. And they said, well, you know, the gay movement has told me this is the only way that I can love my gay friends. And if I don't support gay marriage, I obviously don't love my gay friends. And now there's a lot of people that are saying, you know what? I want children to have a mother and father. And even if it means some of my gay friends might get angry at me, I'm okay with that, because kids need a mother and father. And I guess I would rather have a little bit of discomfort between me and my lesbian niece or my gay neighbors. If it means that I am not complicit in validating the manufacturing of intentionally motherless kids, that's okay with me. So this is the right course of thinking. You cannot say, I support gay marriage and say, children need a mother and father, because those two things don't go together. It doesn't go together, in the moral universe, and it doesn't go together in the legal universe. You can have one or the other. Either kids have a right to their mother and father, and therefore, the government recognizes the natural procreative union that makes those babies. You can support gay marriage, and you're going to get gay men laughing at babies that are saying, mama, and saying, sorry, kid, you don't have one.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think that we are seeing the tide finally turning, and people are recognizing the lie that we talked about, that it isn't just between, you know, the two, homosexuals, and there's no other, you know, victims. Well, who does it hurt? You know? What does it matter to you? I mean, we've all heard all of those excuses like, why do you care what goes on in the bedroom? Why do you care, you know, whether two people say that they're married or not?
Katie Oberge says misnaming marriage has harmed children
And one of the, pushbacks, now that I'm seeing, on social media and other places, Katy, is this question well, you say that marriage is between one man and one woman, but where does it say that? And obviously they want us to respond, well, you know, the Bible clearly defines marriage as one man and one woman. So that they can say, well, I don't believe in the Bible. And, well, you know, the Constitution doesn't, claim God and, you know, all of those other arguments to then make it into a religious argument instead of simply one of natural law that, that a child cannot come to exist or without one man and one woman. And so natural law, the very reality to which we're presented, provides the definition of marriage.
Katy Faust: Yeah, it's so funny because I had this guy, you know, on my X thread last night. Marriage is about, you know, children being with their mother and father. I have three different couples in my immediate family that don't have any kids. I'm like, how many people in your immediate family didn't come from a mother and father? That's my question. This is not actually about the adults. Take the focus off the adults begin with the child. Where do they come from? What do those two adults that one man and woman, what do they do for the child that nobody else does? Well, they give them maternal and paternal love. Fantastic. They also ground them, their biological identity and anchor them to a kinship network that stabilizes their identity consolidation. Awesome. They also happen to be statistically the most connected to, invested in and protective of the child. And whenever there's an unrelated adult that's raising them, you know, risk of abuse and neglect rise. So, those are the non negotiables that are going to be true about the human child, regardless of what five Supreme Court justices say. And children are sad. They're sad when their mother and father has left them or sold them. And that's what we got to see in the video. And so this is, you know, awful for the child, but fantastic for people touching grass and hopefully getting back to the place where we correct this terrible injustice we've inflicted on children. You know, I'm spearheading a national campaign. You are in it. ASA is in it called the, Greater Than Campaign. Greater than dot com. We're going to retake marriage like gay couples can't have. belongs to kids. Children should not be denied their mother and father in the name of name of adult equality. So, we are going to do something about it, and it is going to work. And I'm glad that people are finally seeing with their own eyes the injustice that misnaming marriage has wrought on children.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I'm so grateful and thankful that you have been such a prominent voice on this issue and that there is now a groundswell of national outrage that I hope that we can capitalize on, in the states and also nationally to kind of turn things back. because this of course started not just with a sexual revolution, but you know, even like when I was a kid, you know, growing up in the 90s, you watched shows like Friends, for example, that you know, said, well, you know, who needs, our siblings and all that, you know, our roommates and our friends, well, that's our family. And so there was sort of this perception in the propaganda that often comes through the world of Hollywood, right? The worldview that says you can create a family out of your own, choices and the people that you select, not necessarily the people you're related to. And even among, you know, Gen Z, this is a big thing like hey fam, you know, and everybody. And people use that term just very loosely to mean just, you know, whoever I select and prefer. And we are, we are, I think slowly, hopefully, getting back to the real common sense and natural definitions of what it actually means to be a family and that it's rooted in biology and natural law, not just preferences. And so do you think that because of the kind of this groundswell of the grassroots that the movement is, is really starting and like we saw the overturning of Roe vs. Wade that within the next, you know, hopefully few years we could actually see the overturning of Obergefell and kind of writing this terrible ship?
Katy Faust: Yes, absolutely. You know, nature finds a way. That's the bottom line. Like you can drive it out with a pitchfork, but it's going to come roaring back. We saw it with abortion. We're going to see it in gay marriage too. I don't know how long it's going to take with gay marriage, but as long as we keep speaking the truth, there's no way to avoid this. I mean the evidence is going to be all around us. A lot of these kids that were made intentionally motherless or fatherless in the name of non discrimination, they grow up, they grow up and they're going to say, why did you do this to me? Why was it that I had to lose my father in the name of a new civil right? There aren't any other civil rights like that. I mean abortion, I guess, you know, civil right to abortion. Children lost their life. And we recognize actually that's not a constitutional right. So children should not have to be harmed or denied somebody to whom they have a natural right so that adults can, you know, be in line with the Constitution. So what do we need to do? We need to drive home the fact that children are the primary victims when we redefine marriage. It's not adults who are sad. it's not even religious adults who, you know, have to sign a marriage document that they don't want to sign or arrange flowers they don't want to arrange. The primary victims of gay marriage are children because it makes their mother or father legally optional in their life and that harms them. So there is a groundswell and I think that people are having their eyes opened and they are waking up. But it's our job to make the case not just to the culture, but to the courts. So we do have a judicial strategy for the greater than campaign where we are going to force them to make those decisions. we are not going to be asking them do same sex couples have dignity and are they second class citizens? We're not asking that. They are absolutely 100% made in the image of God and just as worthy of love and protection as anyone else. We're going to be asking the courts, do children benefit from their own mother and father or is a state assigned stranger just as good? That's what we're going to be asking them. And I think that when people and justices are positioned with that question, we're going to get a very, very different answer than we did in 2015.
Jenna Ellis: I hope so. And so if you want to get involved, go to greaterthancampaign.com that's greater than campaign.com be praying for this. And it's great that the eyes of the nation are, are being opened to the atrocities of, what has happened since the Obergefell vs Hodges decision and how we have no authority in our own human capacity to redefine the laws of nature, that nature's God has imposed. So Katy Faust, really appreciate it. Again, follow her on X. You'll see a lot of really great commentary from her that you can use in responding to, people who make these kinds of arguments. So we'll be right back with more.
The question of where are the men and what happened to masculinity is being addressed
: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we're talking about the family and the need for a father and mother and a man and a woman, the question of where are the men and what happened to masculinity, is being addressed in a new book from our friend, raw egg nationalist who's Dr. Charles Cornish Dale that is titled the Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity. And, this is a really important topic, I think. And even just in the context, I was actually laughing because I didn't want to cry about, another headline that I saw recently. there's a new FX limited series called Love Story, which is about, John F. Kennedy Jr's life. And apparently the producers had difficulty finding a modern actor with what they called old school, 1980s style masculinity. Basically, they had trouble finding a man. Like, it's so sad that you have to ask yourself what happened to masculinity? And I see Instagram reels all the time that are so true. In fact, like my, my girlfriends and I send them to each other all the time that, you know, say, here, here's another man behaving like a little princess, you know, and, and another man who isn't actually being a man in, in one way shape, or form. And the question really is, what happened and what caused the death of masculinity? So Raw Egg Nationalist joins us now. And, this is a really important question, like I said. And how do you answer this in the book,
Raw Egg Nationalist: Eugenie? Yeah, this is a huge problem. It's a civilizational problem, actually, as I think we're, we're all starting to realize, you know, you can't have a properly functioning civilization without real men, without men who do the things that men have always traditionally done. And for decades and decades, certainly since the end of the Second World War, but really probably stretching back beyond then, we've seen traditional masculinity demonized, stigmatized, downplayed. you know, we've, we've seen tremendous gains for women over the last hundred years in terms of their formal political rights, their social standing, their cultural power. But, a lot of it has been at the expense of men. but that's not the whole story. It's not simply just about the kind of culture that we live in now and social values and the progress of second and third wave feminism. There's also a serious biological crisis taking place. And that's really the central thing that I, that I look at in this new book, the Last Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity. Testosterone decline in particular. So testosterone is the master male hormone. It is the hormone that makes men men rather than women. Men and women both have testosterone, but men have much, much more than women in the same way that women have much, much more estrogen than men. and Scientific studies show that over recent decades, there has been a 1%, year on year, decline in testosterone levels among men across the west, in the U.S. in Europe, in Israel, in other countries, and it looks like actually in the developing world as well. And so as a counterpart to this social decline, the kind of marginalization of masculinity, there's also this biological change, this profound biological change, this happening. And it's happening for all sorts of reasons, reasons that RFK Jr actually is trying to address with the MAHA agenda. Things like unhealthy lifestyles, obesity, sedentary lifestyles, lack of exercise, but also pervasive exposure to harmful chemicals, especially a class of chemicals called endocrine disruptors, which disrupt the body's natural balance of testosterone and estrogen with a wide variety of harmful effects. They drive obesity, metabolic changes, behavioral changes, fertility changes, and also changes to levels of testosterone. and so that's driving this sort of masculine decline as well. It's social, it's also biological.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's so sad that we're seeing such dramatic effects. I mean, I think it's even, been a dramatic change even in my lifetime. I mean, I can remember again, you know, being a kid in, in the 90s because, I was born in 1984, you know, so, kind of coming of age, late, 80s, early 90s, there men were still men. And, you know, there were, still a cultural understanding of, you know, the need of the family and moral, values and all of this. And yet, you know, we fast forward, only, you know, 20, 30 years later, and we see the rise of the effeminate man. And, it's shocking to me that men themselves would allow this to happen. I mean, what shifted culturally, beyond, you know, the chemicals and the science and all, and all of this, that obviously contributed, to this significantly. There also is a worldview and kind of a mindset shift when men don't care about being fathers anymore. They don't care about being husbands, they don't care about being protectors, and obviously not all. I mean, hopefully Christian men still care about that. But even, Even within the church, you know, we're not seeing, the overall standard of. Of masculinity and the things that that, used to entail. And so what happened in terms of this, this. This overall mindset shift that men were okay just disregarding their own masculinity?
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, I think it's a con. It's a complicated story, Jenna. I mean, there are a lot of Things going on. I mean, if we just look at fertility, then of course, you know, fertility rates throughout the west have been in precipitous decline for decades. And we could draw parallels with other societies throughout history. You know, you could draw, parallels with the Roman Empire. You could talk about the kind of collapse of fertility that took place during, the Roman Empire largely as a result of prosperity and say, you know, maybe. Maybe it's economic prosperity that perhaps stops people from having children. Maybe, you know, we're too prosperous, we're too comfortable. people find fulfillment in their lives simply through material goods and comfort rather than, you know, going out and seeking more, meaningful, existence. So I think there's. I think there's that, but I think also, I mean, we are subject to very, very. A very, very virulent strain of. Of feminism, I think, which, by asserting that women are totally equal with men in every single facet, not just mentally, morally, but also physically, then we've really, you know, erase the differences between men and women. And so not only is it the case that actually now, you know, fatherhood is disparaged, but also motherhood is disparaged as well. They're two sides. They're two sides of the same coin. And I think we've. We've moved away from, a sense that, you know, there are, ah, there are fundamental differences that should be preserved and upheld between the two sexes, which don't necessarily mean that they're unequal. You can afford men and women equal protection in front of the law. You can afford them equal value within society. But you don't have to go that further step and say, actually, you know what? There aren't any differences at all between men and women. The differences we see between men and women, they're just arbitrary constructs. You know, they're just constructs of power. And they've just been used throughout history to oppress women at the expense of men, which obviously isn't, is true to some extent in certain ways, but it's certainly not an absolute truth. And so I think, I mean, it definitely is a cultural and ideological problem as well as a biological one. It's an economic problem too, of course, because, you know, you've had women entering the workforce since the end of the Second World War, and that's done all sorts of interesting things to wages. You know, it's much harder now for a man to support family, ah, on a single wage that used to be normal. You know, a man could buy a home or certainly rent A home and support a family on a single wage. That's not possible now. So the priorities have shifted economically, culturally, morally. And then you've got this biological problem underneath as well. It's a really nasty, knotty situation that we've got ourselves into, I think.
Jenna Mah: The priorities of people have shifted in life
Jenna Ellis: M. Ah, you're so right too that as the mindset and the priority shift of what the goals are in life and The goals have certainly shifted. and the priorities for people who are wanting to prioritize physical comfort, pleasure, status, you know, things that ultimately are self driven, rather than creating a life of service and of others and of contributing to something greater than themselves. And when these priorities shift, we start seeing, you know, the people who are are okay completely just being single or they choose a relationship without children or you know, they choose some of these other arrangements, like being in a homosexual relationship that doesn't allow for natural children, because of their own personal preferences instead of recognizing the morality that is implicit in the natural order of things. And this includes of course the distinctions you were talking about raw egg of the differences between men and women and society. Now for decades, has been sold this line. Not just of the sexual revolution and to seek pleasure and all of those things, but to redefine family, masculinity, femininity, all of those things on a relativistic scale and do whatever makes you happy, affirm whatever pleasure you're seeking. Your life goal is just as valid as, as someone else's. And in the process we're losing the. The understanding of what genuinely gives life meaning. And of course first and foremost that is coming into a saving knowledge of Christ and our relationship with Christ, but then living within the context of the ordered life that God created us to be fulfilled in. And so you know, we're seeing massive depression, anxiety, mental health problems and so much that you know, is attributable a lot to you know, some of these chemicals and other things, you know, that are problems with the food system but also with our worldview. Because none of this is making anybody genuinely happier or actually more fulfilled. They end up getting all of the status, money, you know, relationships, pleasure, whatever. And they realize that it's all empty. And then at that point they. They become despondent. And we're seeing such a rise of dependency on Big Pharma because of that. And so it seems like there's no incentive really for our system, whether in America or Europe or you know, anywhere in the west. To correct this, I think it has to come from we, the people, ourselves, recognizing that this isn't a good way to live.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, no, no, I. I agree with you, Jenna. I think that there are entrenched interests and incentives within the system to perpetuate all of this. I, mean, look, women. Women going out to work, in large numbers has benefited big business. There's no question about that. It's kept wages down, because all of a sudden, you know, you have effectively doubled the labor pool, and then you've got Big Pharma, like you say, you know, I mean, rather than. Rather than actually sorting out the underlying problems, you know, what's. Why are we actually this depressed? Why are we this fat? Why are we despondent? Why don't we have any sense of. Of purpose? Oh, well, let's just give you a drug for that. And then, of course, there are side effects from that drug, and so we'll give you another drug to deal with the side effects. And you end up in a point where. At a point where actually, you know, a significant number of people within society are not only medicated the whole time, they're taking multiple medications, they're. They're, taking five or more medications, which is known as polypharmacy. so there are all of these entrenched interests that I think are working against a really meaningful change that could actually do something to, to address these fundamental problems. I, mean, we have Maha, and I think that RFK Jr. Is someone who understands the difference, between ad hoc, you know, like big pharma, non solutions and real solutions that address the. The underlying fundamental problems. You know, he. He understands that we can't have more big Pharma. We need to change the way people eat. We need to get people outside in the sun, we need to get them to exercise, etc. but he's taking on the biggest entrenched interests in the U.S. big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Chemical. It's. It's not gonna. It's not gonna be easy. I mean, we are. We are really at a point where actually we. We basically need something approaching a revolution, actually, in order to, put us back on the right course. You know, we can't just have sticking plasters at this point.
Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah.
Do you think young men of gen Z are recognizing this issue
And, you know, do you think that, And we're almost out of time here, we need to do a longer segment on this, but do you think that, the young men, at least of gen Z are recognizing this. I mean, I see a lot of them, stepping up and saying, okay, I want to return to masculinity. Not just traditional masculinity, but actually the definition of what it means to be a man.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes, I do. I think there is. And you see it on social media all the time. I mean, certainly I've got a huge following on Twitter and that's because of my message, I think. But you see it on TikTok, you see it on Instagram, you know, young men going out, getting fit, trying to improve their lives, trying to make themselves better. And that's something that should absolutely be encouraged. And I do my best, I really do do my best to try and get young men to, to make a meaningful change.
Jenna Ellis: And, So let us know where you can find your book. I guess it's on Amazon to pre order. It's called the Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes, it's out now, Jenny. You can get it in hardcover, Kindle and audiobook formats from Amazon.
Jenna Ellis: Fantastic. So it's called the Last men, by Dr. Charles Cornish Dale. You can follow him on X as well. and so you can get that now on Amazon. And I'd encourage you to read it and think, about the propositions here, that we're talking about because this matters to, to culture, to civilization, and ultimately, to the order that God has established in, in nature, the laws of nature and of nature's God. So thanks so much, raw egg. And as always, you can reach me and my team, jenna fr.net.
Gerard Filitti from the Lawfare Project, joins Jenna and they explore the implications of these mysterious cases and their potential ties to foreign espionage.
Katy Faust shares her perspective on the rights of children.
Dr. Charles Cornish Dale on his new book, "The Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity."
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
